It may be wise to look at what Caz has posted - that is, if you want to see the other side. If you don´t, then it´s little use.

See, Christer, and this is why arguing with you is quite like arguing with a Fundy. You are quite literally incapable of seeing the forest from the trees, or the log in your own eye, or all the other arboreal metaphoricals.

Quote:

Saying that I interjected Lechmere in the thread is a bit rich too - my dealings with Caz have been about the carman entirely, more or less, and so that is what I have to go by when judging her qualifications.

You didn't need to judge her qualifications at all. It wasn't relevant to the thread. It wasn't needed. It was actually off-topic and a personal dig, that didn't add anything to the conversation. At all. But you saw an opportunity to jump in there with your suspect, and you took it. Which is basically, what everyone is saying. You just can't see that. Through the logs and the trees, and whatnot.

Quote:

I had no wish to discuss him, and did not do so either.

Fundamentalists don't always have to discuss their Lord. They just always have to let you know he's foremost in their thoughts. Praise Cross!

Quote:

When it comes to disrupting threads, by the way, who would have thought that this is a thread about whether posters with suspects can be trusted? It seems much more like a thread with the sole agenda of defaming me, at any cost.

You quite literally put yourself up as the poster child as the one who was not being trusted and you are wondering why people are questioning your actions or criticizing them? You posted a thread that quite literally demanded to have your actions examined and are angry that people have? Really? .... I mean... Really? Don't ask for people's honest opinions on a public forum if you don't really want to hear them. It's generally not wise.

And how is it defaming you, to quite literally post your exact words? If you consider it defaming to post your exact words, choose your words more carefully in the future.

__________________
Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.

When it comes to disrupting threads, by the way, who would have thought that this is a thread about whether posters with suspects can be trusted?

The answer to that is easy. Yes, of course they can, provided they take a balanced and reasonable approach to the evidence. Trying to make (e.g.) Elizabeth Jackson's abdominal mutilations as similar to Mary Kelly's is not a balanced interpretation; neither is trying to place Lechmere closer to Nichols' body than the records say he was.

Quote:

It seems much more like a thread with the sole agenda of defaming me, at any cost.

You began this thread by personalising the argument and making derogatory comments about me. From the very first post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

On an adjacent thread, Gareth Williams claims that my suggestion that the Ripper and the Torso killer was one and the same is guided by my agenda, and that I only make the call I do because it serves the Lechmere theory. No other merit is ascribed to my suggestion, the primary reason why I don't acknowledge the significance of the differences Gareth mentions is because I "have an agenda to pursue".

This kind of senseless crap has plagued the boards for far too long. It should go without saying that any poster out here must judge any bid made on it´s inherent quality, instead of trying to hide behind unsubstatiated accusations of the opponent having an agenda to defend.

And this continued in your next post but two after that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

Doing Ripperology in that way is compromising yourself very badly. It is one thing to be wary about how people may over- or underrate the value of different pieces of information, based on convictions of theirs. But is quite another matter to make an initial deduction of credibility on behalf of people with suspects, regardless of the inherent quality of what they say. That is indecent, illogical and totally disrespectful.

Gareth has not only violated this rule - he also seems to be proud of it. The only thing he has managed to establish by it is a glaring lack of credibility and fair judgment

Can't you see that it might be the case that it's your own belligerent and high-handed attitude that's the main problem here? More often than not you're the first out of the blocks with the insults, before playing the innocent victim if someone gives you a dose of your own medicine in return.

Whenever somebody introduces a voodoo element of detracting from another posters overall credibility, there is a dire need to discuss it.

2. Discussion does not go as planned

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

When it comes to disrupting threads, by the way, who would have thought that this is a thread about whether posters with suspects can be trusted? It seems much more like a thread with the sole agenda of defaming me, at any cost.

I really cannot be arsed to contribute more to that. But I´m sure there are those who are better suited to take care of it.

Then I´ll leave it to you to to produce some little contrafire, Abby. If her ability to judge the Lechmere case is something to go by, I´d say you needn´t worry too much.

Hmmm. If I had the time and the will, I suppose I could have created a thread of my own, so I could whinge loudly and at length about Christer's treatment of me, and his blatant attempt to belittle my ability to judge the case against Hutchinson, by belittling my ability to judge the case he has tried to make against Lechmere.

But then I read what I just wrote and realised how hilarious and delicious the paradox is. Christer was inadvertently belittling his own ability to judge the case against Hutchinson, because our judgement is the same! Neither of us thinks Hutchinson should even be in the frame, while I feel the same about Lechmere.

It's a good lesson in not hurling personal insults that are shaped like boomerangs.

Love,

Caz
X

__________________"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov